Dale responded to Cynthia in a discussion about Horary and the relevance of
the temporal aspect of astrology. I've already dropped a couple of pennies
in here, and can only expand on what I've said before. However...

> >>Horary begins, after all, at the moment a felt need to know
> >>something, to have a questioned answered, becomes purposeful such
> >>that it fulfills part of the program of the organism, and further,
> >>it is timed according to specific and recognized planetary "pulls",
> >>planetary "pulls", none of which is programmatic, since each
> >>question is unique to the moment and the individual . . .

Cynthia clearly identifies one part of the problem of Horary: for what,
exactly, is the horoscope erected? She asserts that it begins "at the
moment a felt need to know something, to have a question answered...";
there has been an ongoing controversy about the timing of the question, and
there are several schools of thought in this regard. Some Horarists regard
the time they themselves receive the question and have understood it as the
time for which the horoscope is erected. Some who take their questions only
in a written form require that the date and time of writing be recorded, and
they use this data to erect the horoscope. There are probably other
methodologies but they don't vary much from this, I expect.

Some theories concerning Horary would have the first occurance of the
question as the relevant time, and as far as I know this remains
theoretical; establishing data for that first occurance would seem to be
rather problematic. I've heard a variation on that theory that proposed
that the same sort of relationship exists between the inception of a
question and it's "birth" at the time of putting to the Horarist, that
exists between the conception and birth of an individual; presumably there
is some sort of technique for establishing the inception of the question
from this point of view.

In addition, there are those who would have it that an Horary is only
relevant when viewed in the context of the Natal horoscope. It seems to me
I've heard the sound of traditional Horarists gnashing teeth and exhibiting
other behavior of disapproval when considering this view < grin > . And there
are probably some number of other somewhat bizarre departures from
traditional Horary that I've not been aware.

So Cynthia's discomfort with her Horary practice from a philosophical point
of view is clearly warranted, especially when the Genethliacalists rather
routinely discount Horary (sometimes rather rudely dismiss it out of hand,
actually...). As far as I know, there is no such tendency amongst Horarists
regarding their counterparts. In any case, Cynthia's intellectual
integrity, here giving rise to this question, does us all service; she has
practiced both without engaging in prejudgment and so I look forward to
being witness to her process in this matter.

Some observations: Given Cynthia's obvious intellectual passion and
integrity, I cannot imagine that either of those practices were less than
successful. If so, it would seem reasonable to ask her to expand on some of
the details of her practices, such that may allow some insight into how she
was able to do so. In addition, some insight into how she came to a
philosophical problem here may also be available.

This probably isn't fair, Cynthia, but few of us actively practice both
forms, and you have (in addition to being articulate and insightful, etc.,
etc. < grin > ), so I'd like to ask you if you would expand some on this matter
*from your perspective as it was up to the point of your sabbatical*.

I'm specifically asking for that perspective because otherwise we risk
engaging in speculation and commentary where original data should being
acquired. Does this make sense?

Andre and others have declared that what we really lack in all this is solid
data of pretty much any sort! Almost all that goes on here is speculation,
which is of course a great deal better than what goes on most anywhere else
in cyberspace. But if we could actually get a clean report of a personal
experience, where commentary is clearly delineated from the data, this would
be of real solid value! Anyway, it makes sense to me < grin >

> >I think you and other thoughtful, intelligent astrologers are
> >bothered by something, can't quite put your finger on it, and so
> >far haven't been able to get outside the box that is the cause,
> >in my opinion, of what's bothering you. But anyone who's honestly
> >looking for answers is not silly or laughable, whether or not I
> >agree with you or you with me at the moment.

I'd go even further and say that, in addition to declaring that the only
stupid question is the one that isn't (wasn't) asked, anyone who does so in
the presence of peers does an inestimable service to us all.

This is a good thread, thanks to Dale and Cynthia, and it would be really
nice if someone out there in lurker-land would step forward and join in!!!

And then Andre said:
> >
> >I'm glad you made this response Bill. I think I agree with "people are
> >unique combinations [rather than] types", but there is a lot more to
> >this issue than meets the eye. True, the ~basis~ of (one form of)
> >astrology is simply 12 signs, 12 houses, 10 planets, and a collection of
> >aspects - let's be really simple here and say just the five majors.
> >
> >In that case, perfect understanding of these 39 basic elements
> >guarantees perfect understanding of every combination? Yes? No?
> >
> >Moreover, it should be a ~simple~ task to identify which of these
> >elements are uppermost in any given person, without needing to see the
> >chart.
> >
> >I think not - to both propositions!

A while back, in one of your "monster posts" < grin > , you cited a few books
that would be good to read about the post-reductionist scientific paradigm.
This would be "simple results from simple rules", one supposes, and going in
both directions!

> >A piano produces only 12 notes, yet the ~combinations~ (with only ten
> >fingers) are essentially infinite. The same is true of the so-called
> >"productive" property of human language: a finite lexicon or vocabulary,
> >and a few rules, but a capacity to produce an infinite range of
> >utterances. Indeed, humans are said to constantly produce "novel" (never
> >before produced) sentences.

The example here suggests that the rules are simple, even when the results
are complex. In fact, the rules that yield these complex results are not at
all simple. It is our decision to make them so that creates this apparency.
To the extent we fail to recognize this, we delude ourselves and cause
ourselves to thrash helplessly in the illusion we have created. A question
might be: to what extent are we actually capable of identifying even the
most important rules involved here, much less those we have postulated

> >The "combinations" we produce in language tend to be strikingly
> >different. Thus, different speakers, writers, composers, artists, and
> >thinkers are generally able to express themselves freely without being
> >unduly concerned that they will unwittingly duplicate (plagiarise)
> >someone else. Indeed, that would seem to be a fairly hard task, without
> >actually ~copying~ that other person's work fairly closely.

Indeed!

> >To complete the analogy, the simplicity of the astrological framework is
> >deceptive: the expressive properties are essentially infinite, and
> >"understanding" (or knowing, or having experience of, whatever you like)
> >the basics no more gives us any notion of what this or that person "is"
> >than "understanding" the 12 notes of the piano allows us to anticipate,
> >analyse, or "understand" Beethoven's 'Hammerklavier' sonata.

Exactly so.

> >In fact, (modern?) astrologers have formalised the notion that the
> >astrological framework has this infinite property in the principle of
> >~synthesis~ (or holism). This is an important assumption inherent in the
> >formula I presented, but didn't mention at that point.

Good point. At the risk of diverging from this thread, I would observe that
holism is now regarded as a complete and self-contained philosophy of
practice. Those who espouse this repudiate the relevance of any analogy
such as you have given, and so in this regard, "holism" is no longer a
formalization of a notion based such as you have described it. Yet another
example of exclusivity of viewpoint at work, and one that makes any sort of
agreement in principle difficult if not impossible.

> >Here's a statement of that principle as ~I~ see it just to put us on
> >(somewhat) common ground: "No configuration in the chart operates in
> >isolation, but rather interacts with every other configuration present
> >in the same chart. This means each factor modifies every other factor,
> >and is modified in turn. Moreover, the ~overall~ result is unique." To
> >borrow a bit of physics terminology, there can be "strong" and weak
> >versions of the principle. Let's call the one I just stated 'strong
> >synthesis'. A 'weak synthesis' version might end "....modifies every
> >other factor ~slightly~ and is modified ~slightly~ in turn. The overall
> >result is not unique: some apparently different charts may produce a
> >similar interpretation".

[snip explanations]
> >So ~if~ we accept strong synthesis, it seems more likely our ideas or
> >beliefs about the meanings of Aries, Sun, Sextile etc. [which we
> >normally discuss as isolated entities] are mostly speculative,
> >imaginative, or theoretical; approximations. Like scientific knowledge,
> >they are ~tentative~.
> >
> >Countering this thesis, Marc Edmund Jones (somewhere in his weighty
> >texts) asserted quite the opposite: each configuration ~does~ stand
> >alone. Two people both with Mars Sextile Venus are ~exactly the same~ in
> >that respect, even though they may differ in other ways (Aries/Gemini
> >versus Taurus/Gemini for example).
> >
> >This being so, (and let's consider 'weak synthesis' as the same case for
> >now), then really all we need to know are the 120 Planet/Sign
> >combinations, the 120 Planet/House combinations, and the 45
> >Planet/Planet combinations (for aspects). That's not nearly so bad as
> >about 10^18 different types of person! It also implies clients given
> >computerised charts are getting value for money. Hmm...

This is a very interesting exposition of one of the ongoing debates in the
practice of astrology. I appreciate the clarity with which it expresses the
processes involved.

In fact, what we have here is a deliberate dual that Andre has set up to
look at the extent to which traditional astrology (planets, signs, houses,
etc.) generates an individual and organic whole, and a means to see how it
can meaningfully do so. Having said this, let me restate this slightly: he
has set up a means to see just how, and to what extent, the construct of
astrology, and our interpretation of it, is relevant to reality. The point
is this: if what we are doing is not of value to our lives (our own and our
client's), then we should ask why we are doing it.

The historical tradition of astrology clearly indicates its continually
reaffirmed value. What we have to ask is how and to what extent we have
contributed to or detracted from that value. As we understand it, the
tradition that was presented to us from last century affirmed the weak
synthesis. As a result of cultural and social pressures, astrology
(apparently) has been forced onto the basis of the strong synthesis.

The short version, and the one Andre expresses, is this: apparently we are
to make a choice between these two views. Apparently we are to consider
them mutually exclusive. My question: is this necessary, or even relevant?

I suspect that Andre has rather neatly shown us how we have created a box
with carefully parallel sides and orthogonal corners, and now we believe we
live inside that box and that nothing exists outside the box we've created.
This is an illusion, I submit. What we need here is Cynthia's rebus!!!

In fact, there are fairly well documented matters of value in both of these
views. The organic whole arising from the astrological construct most
closely represents the organic whole for whom (which) the horoscope was
erected, and a judicious strategy for elucidating this (to the client) has
obvious and powerful merit. On the other hand, I have seen cookbook
interpretations yield some powerful insights when they were comprised of
good solid material (not Hollywood glitz, etc), and I've seen the native
experience insights not otherwise available. Both the strong and weak
synthesis are matters of assumption, and used wisely, they can serve as
foundations for powerful practices.

All this was relevant to Andre's continuing post.

> >Bill, and others concerned at my use of the term "type" [4, 54], I hope
> >it is now clearer what I meant by it. If it sounded like the tidy
> >personality typologies that ~classify~ people into "introverts",
> >"aggressives" etc (as they are usually understood!) then it was a bad
> >term to use. My point was rather the opposite: 10^18 variations rather
> >strongly suggests we ~can't~ "classify" people. It suggests that TA in
> >combination with strong synthesis agrees with the interpretivist notion
> >of truth; and raises strong questions about the nature and status of
> >astrological knowledge: most definitely "a" knowledge. Indeed, whereas
> >TA is usually understood to produce a linear and Newtonian picture of
> >it's subject (human being, problem, nation etc.), in combination with
> >strong synthesis it produces quite the opposite. (I also indicate, in
> >the last part of this post, how other constructs of TA such as the synastry
> >chart produce a form of context).

I understand your conclusion here, Andre, but I'd like to point out that
these are solely theoretical positions. In practice, the client wants
(needs?) to know stuff and the way that happens is in terms of (hopefully)
tidy bites that can be reasonably digested. Over the course of a session,
the astrologer hopes to build up a clearer image on the basis of these
bites. The bites assume the notion of the weak synthesis (presumably), in
that they are assumed to have significance in their own right. The hoped
for image assumes the notion of the strong synthesis in that none of these
bites have intrinsic value, but only in terms of their connection
(relevance?) to the whole.

In Genethliacal, it is the generation of value for the native (client) that
is the purpose of the practice, and the process must be expected to mirror
the process by which people gain in understanding, I suggest. Thus, the
debate over traditional versus holistic astrology becomes more heat than
light when the "rubber meets the road" and the session begins. The
astrologer had better have a command of both of these views, or a) the
client isn't going to get anything digestable in the form that the client
can handle, and b) there will very likely be no real gain in understanding,
except as generated by the client without the guidance of the astrologer.

> >It's worth noting too that - although the basis is not "non-linear"
> >(chaotic) - the resulting structure has certain chaos-like properties in
> >terms of the trajectories actually produced. Well, actually this is
> >because of the way the planets move - but essentially very similar
> >charts will be separated by very large periods of time, i.e. they will
> >never co-exist.

Was it you or Dale who was talking about similar charts existing in
different historical periods? Did I remember something about this being a
defining element in the difference in these periods. Aha, I remember his
reference in this digest!

Dale said:

[snip]
> >one I looked for and found, via an intensive reading program following
> >a serendipitous insight, a Uranus/Neptune rhythm running through
> >history, a set of cultural efflorescences recurring with metronomic
> >regularity at 171-year intervals. I'll be happy to email copies of
> >the posts detailing my findings to anyone who hasn't seen them and
> >would like to. Just email me.)

Isn't necessarily relevant to this thread, but it's worth repeating, I
think.

> >Incidentally either form of TA raises searching questions about our
> >capacity to ~practice~ astrology, if by "practice" we mean that we
> >should (or can) "understand" our client. Even the simpler form demands
> >of us that we have or develop highly subtle and sophisticated pictures
> >of human variability and possibility. Instead, social-cognitive and
> >cognitive psychology suggest we view the world in terms of (mostly)
> >self- and other- 'schemata' which do not even begin to approach the sort
> >of variability or complexity required in order to "understand" another
> >person. In the simplest case, we may classify life and people in terms
> >of just one or two dualities such as "good/bad".

And this is what I've gone to some pains to address already. As far as
understanding our client is concerned, we must accept that we cannot do so
entirely, nor should we. What we have is a detailed map that we can use to
point out aspects of the client (as territory) that the client wishes
clarified. We can generate a clear mirror that is not distorted by the
expectations of others, and that (to some extent) shows the context of the
cultural and social effects on the client. Whether we do so depends, I
suspect, on the extent to which we understand the nature and structure of
the astrological construct (the tradition of astrology, sort of...).

One of the things that astrology should teach us is the value of the sort of
objectivity expressed by the eastern philosophies: that all things have an
intrinsic nature, whether we perceive this or not; to the extent we do not,
we are less than successful in our interaction therewith. For example, the
philosophy expressed in the I Ching makes this very clear: the simple
significance of the First Hexagram (The Heavens) is that one should seek to
understand all things in their own terms. The Judgement (Wilhelm/Baynes):
"Sublime success, perseverence furthers." Because all things arise from the
unmanifest, all things are sublime. Because they manifest, they are
successful. Perseverance (to understand this) furthers, and implicit in
this is the exhortation that it is *the only thing that furthers!!* This is
the sort of objectivity to which I refer.

In the effort to attain this objectivity, we come to understand somewhat of
the nature of our own perceptions and the reasons for their existence, and
we come to understand that they are *our* perceptions which exist for *our*
purposes. In corollary, we come to understand that they are *not* relevant
to the client, nor should they be. What we do come to understand is that
the client has his or her own perceptions, and that we can come to
understand them in their own terms through the use of astrology.... which
is why we practice on ourselves first < grin > , and then on friends who give
us a lot of slack... < blush.. > , before setting up shop as a pro. Or so I
think.

> >I should perhaps also state that my assertion of 10^18 variations is
> >partly to make explicit (some) implications of our frameworks. Although
> >I only picked on one (TA), similar arguments might apply to others. As
> >part of clarifying our "theories" of astrology, we needs be aware of the
> >implications of our frameworks, principles and assumptions.

This way we can keep the opinions of others, especially mine < grin > ,
separate from the data and methodology itself.

> >Thus, I believe it is important to answer questions such as the status
> >of the synthesis principle, and of other principles. If the 10^18
> >variations seems absurd, one might instantly thrust strong synthesis
> >aside. Not so fast! If we do so to keep astrology aligned with current
> >paradigmatic assumptions (such as the assumption of commonality implicit
> >in many forms of psychology, in many types of social control, and so
> >on), this is something we have to think very, very hard about!

I've dumped a few dollars in "two cents worth" into the pot already.

> >We need to ask because astrology ~may~ have a valid perspective to
> >offer that differs from other fields. So ~do~ we believe people are
> >primarily similar, or fundamentally different? And whatever our
> >answers, why?

Is this question an extension of those that devolve from the weak/strong
synthesis argument?

Again, this useful formalization of these apparently divergent views is only
relevant as it speaks to the reality of astrological practice in the real
world. What it does is demonstrate the nature of the divergence and how
they remain connected as well.

Whether one sees similarity or difference is pretty much of a piece as the
glass of water: half full or half empty? It depends on one's point of
view, and that probably depends on one's need for looking at this in the
first place. If we are seeking connections, we look for similarites and if
we're seeking definitions of distinctness, we look for the differences.
What happens here is that we can see the implications of whichever we choose
from the standpoint of the astrological construct.

Now the question is, which produces which, and why? Does the strong
synthesis make determination of difference easier, or similarity easier; and
what about the weak synthesis? And why?

> >The notion of commonality, for example, has a definite history and
> >fulfills definite agendas: in past (for a few of us) terms anchored in
> >the necessity to survive, in modern terms anchored in the efficient
> >dispersal of insufficient resources (e.g., educating, healing). The
> >very ~mechanism~ of language itself requires that, in a sense,
> >commonality be assumed and enforced. However none of this, neither the
> >possibility nor the historical actuality of it, necessarily entails that
> >there is commonality "within" the person (or, if that seems too extreme
> >a claim, within ~parts~ of the person, or the person seen in certain
> >ways).
> >
> >OTOH, if one's predilection is for 'radical individualism', one must be
> >wary of swallowing something like TA and strong-synthesis merely because
> >they appear compatible. The very notion of individualism imposes strong
> >requirements that are only ~beginning~ to be addressed (qualitative
> >research paradigms, post-modernist thinking and so on); and one might
> >well be suspicious of a framework as conceptually tidy as TA!

Andre expressed his assumptions here, presumably following his line of
argument (which is clear and accessible). Is there another way of looking
at this? If so, how? What insights are there in that regard?

> >*** Foreground/Background ***
> >
> >Bill, I hadn't really thought of the distinction I was making here [4,
> >54] in holographic terms. I simply meant that in human observation
> >those things that stand out (foreground) and so preoccupy our attention
> >as astrologers (indeed, as persons) do not necessarily represent the
> >whole adequately. Effectively, and (according to schemata ideas), we
> >~all~ tend to be reductionists, as we tend to extract those features of
> >reality singled out by our particular mental scheme, composited of
> >beliefs, attitudes, experiences [gadzooks, perhaps even planetary
> >configurations!]. As such, we confirm our own expectations.

Yep. Did I say this last time? We all practice reductionism when we "take
it one step at a time.." Concerning confirming our own expectations, I'd
suggest we insert "tend to" in the appropriate place.

(he waxes verbose again < argh > ) One of the common practices I would caution
about here is that of making statements that define rather than describe. I
know that Andre didn't intend to imply a blanket statement here, but it
strikes me that we all (me most of all?) do this and in doing so, entrap
ourselves in assumptions that should have been propositions for inspection
rather than axioms with which to construct foundations.

> >Rather than asserting something profound about the nature of
> >astrological influence, I merely meant that any such influence is more
> >likely to operate in terms of the "whole" (which I characterised as
> >"background") rather than just the dramatic "events" that we tend to
> >"see". To attempt to express this in Dale's terms (and risk doing so
> >badly), Saturn Transit Mars may ~reliably~ produce a state of unrest in
> >which probably rather ~fundamental~ issues of self-efficacy come to the
> >fore in consciousness. But if we eshew this (admittedly deeper and
> >therefore harder to describe) level of description in favour of
> >~particular~ events, we place ourselves firmly in probability territory
> >(and although I advocate statistical mechanics in some areas, this is
> >not one!) and begin to admit purely spurious findings into our
> >astrological 'knowledge'. I've no doubt people do occasionally fall off
> >ladders during Mars transits, but I fancy we do so on other (non-Mars)
> >occasions too.

Well stated! In my terms (already here expressed) the map is not the
territory, and out of context of adjacent plats, it is constrained in its
worth. It does not provide social context (map of plats), and by itself it
does not show development (overlays). The territory is affected by all
these and more, and the territory experiences reality determined by matters
beyond the purview of the map.

Andre, I have obviously added another dimension to your material here, and
it was intended solely to provide context. I suspect you will easily
determine which of those books I just finished reading....LOL!!!!

And then Andre talks to Candy and then to Bill Sheeran, and I sit silently
reading and learning. And whilst doing so, #61 arrived.

Cynthia said:

> >Hello Everyone,
> >Dale, thank you so much for your gracious and tolerant response.
Rarely
> >have I encountered a rebuttal tendered so gently without even a smidgen of
> >the denigratory, the patronizing, the sarcastic, or the disingenuous.

Dale is a gentleman. So is Andre. Some of the others of us are sometimes
not, I regret to say.

> >I saw your point immediately (even as I read the interrogatory title of
> >your post)--indeed, it shimmered back at me when I re-read my own words, as
> >I mentioned in my previous address to Bill Sheeran. Not only did I do
> >violence to your argument, but I also catheterized horary beyond all
> >recognition. Certainly I am on a quest and you have definitively put to
> >rest, for me, one misbegotten avenue of research.

Yet you have working knowledge of Horary, Cynthia! And your statements
about Horary were substantive, as I took occasion to note. You are the only
person I know who is asking these questions. Please continue!!!

> >Like Andre, I too will be off-list for a long while. But I will be
here
> >nevertheless, observing, learning. Reading Exegesis is a great pleasure,
> >driven by the passion and insatiable curiosity of its writers, filled with
> >fascinating exegeses by fearless thinkers who I am pleased to call my
> >fellows. As a business editor, I did a lot of ghostwriting...this time, I
> >will assume the luxury of being merely the ghost.
> >Warm Regards to you all,
> >Cynthia

We shall miss you, Cynthia. Please return as soon as you can!

And then Dennis exchanged dialogue with everyone, and awaits a substantial
one with me. Haven't got one at hand at the moment, Dennis, but there are a
couple of things that grab my attention:

You have several times indicated that your practice of astrology is
comprised of tools that you've chosen on the basis of whether they "felt
right", or some such. I must tell you that this sort of methodology for a
scientist would be appalling, and I wonder why you have chosen to do this.
You've expressed a rather strong and seemingly categorical rejection of
science itself, so I suppose this might be a reason. I wonder if you could
explain how you are able to evaluate and judge the worth of a technique on
the basis of how it "feels".

One of the things we are doing here is to try to discover something of the
nature of astrology, at least beyond what is now generally accepted as
appropriate. So I would suggest that any particular methodology of practice
is relevant here, especially when it is used by a strong contributor to this
list. We have an audience (vidience?) in cyberspace of a couple hundred
people and I expect at least some significant number of them read the
digests for content; and these discussions are being archived as well.
Hopefully they will contribute to the knowledge base of astrology itself,
eventually. So what we say here has potential value, and I wonder if you
would contribute in this regard.

> >Wasn't upset, Bill, just rather puzzled and a little exasperated that you
> >had asked me to jump through so many consecutive hoops. Nonetheless, I
> >thought I had managed the gymnastics in a fairly economic fashion. Some of
> >those topics I had long ago filed under "obvious", but if collective
> >progress requires going over old ground, so be it. I await the substantial
> >dialogue!

Regarding well accepted understanding of some of the material you've cited,
I would suggest that it may be understood but not well accepted by any
means. So mere citations of the material or simple arguments tacitly based
on said material misses the mark, I think. To some significant extent, part
of the process going on here is a review and critique of a lot of this
material, because it is just this material that serves as the axiomatic
basis for a lot of views of the astrological construct. I submit that we
need to closely examine a lot of this stuff, and you will notice that I've
rejected some amount that lacks demonstrable internal integrity (in my
view).

One of the more useful methodologies in this process is the exercise of
teaching this stuff in a format where any lack of understanding is
immediately noted by some (hopefully appropriate) question. The reason for
this is that it can all too soon become a matter of internalization,
*including assumptions*, on the part of the person of competency. It is
those internalized assumptions that we need to air out here, because they
are the ones that keep getting reused even when they are no longer valid (or
were never valid in the first place). Also, teaching stuff is the best way
of determining one's level of understanding thereof.

Now, regarding assumptions: lest it be thought that I use the term
pejoratively, let me hasten to point out that we cannot and will not make
any progress without their use. They form the basis of the development of
theoretical material, and in the process of testing, those assumptions are
validated or put into question. Most of us know about his from science
literacy of some sort. In other areas of knowledge, science is not an
acceptable methodology, and so assumptions can go untested indefinitely. I
strongly claim that it is not appropriate here to leave them untested,
because I think that's been one of the basic problems astrology has had to
suffer all along.

So, Dennis, if you have substantial contributions to make, present it like
you were teaching it, and prepare to be questioned.

I know this is a labor intensive business here... let me tell ya how well
I know! < grin > But I think it's worth it.

Andre Donnell wrote: "BTW Dennis, my physics is pretty rusty too, but I
couldn't see any problem in your final assertion. Indeed, interesting." I
went fishing, but only this nibble from Andre thus far. Thanks Andre, even
that is helpful. Just in case we have new readers, or other contributors
did not appreciate the vast potential significance of my assertion first
time round, here are the relevant 3 paragraphs recycled from Ex 4/59...

"So the fact that 12 entire lunations compose the year must be a consequence
of entrainment of the lunar orbit by the Sun. We know the Moon is
phase-locked because we never see the `dark' side. Resonance has therefore
produced both this eternal orientation and the number of months in the year,
both consequences of the same physical process. Social consequences of this
resonance are the calendar, the zodiac, and the numbers on the face of your
watch. To extend the point a little further, what these three sociotemporal
frames of reference have in common are twelve equal subdivisions.

Astrologers also have three frames of reference with a common structure of
twelve equal subdivisions: the signs, houses, and aspects. Apparently all
these frames of reference derive originally from the solunar relationship
cycle, the 12 lunations per year resulting from gravitational entrainment of
Luna by Sol and Gaia. Since organic development is timed by this temporal
framework, it must be a pretty fundamental qualitative component of the
local cosmos and nature. As such, it transcends physics, which is a scheme
designed to explain space/time as a whole and to ignore any unique qualities
of any locality. Physics cannot account for any unique features of the
local cosmos.

My understanding of physics is pretty antiquated now, so I invite anyone to
prove my memory faulty. If the number of lunations per year can be
calculated from Newton's laws, or other equations, using the masses of the
three heavenly bodies concerned, then the above declaration is either wrong
or an overstatement of the case. If someone on this list can elucidate the
origin of the number of lunations per year, I'd welcome being corrected on
the matter."

Actually, I must confess that to some degree there was a trick question
here. It is due to the well-known long-standing truism in physics that `the
3-body problem has no solution'! In other words, you not only cannot
discover the Moon's orbital relation to the Earth and Sun from physics and
maths in practice, you cannot do it in theory either. Again, if I am
misinterpreting the reality of the situation, due to faulty memory or
inadequate understanding, I would welcome correction or elucidation by
anyone better informed. [Why did I invite others to prove me wrong if that
seems to be impossible? Well, it may not be. I'm just as sceptical of
`truisms' in science as in astrology.]

My intuitive provisional conclusion in 1985, therefore, was that the number
12 had to be accorded status as an archetype of nature. Why? Because it
was evident that it played a fundamental part in structuring the local
cosmos. Resonance-induced gravitational entrainment of the phase-locked
Moon by the Earth and Sun gives us 12 lunations per year. It also gives us
a residual fraction, which Bill Tallman queries the significance of. I
suppose my take on this, Bill, is that precision in nature is frequently
relative. Philosophically, I would equate this to the remainder term that
is tacked on to a mathematical series, progression or equation, to sum the
residual components to infinity. It could be interpreted as `imperfection',
or `relation of the part to the cosmos'. By the latter expression, I mean
the 12 lunations come from the relation of Luna to Gaia & Sol (the local
3-body system) and the residual part of the 13th lunation is due to the
cumulative effect of the rest of the solar system on that 3-body system.

Bill wrote: "I've been asking for some sort of coherent view of the
astrological mechanism that makes some sense. Dennis has given a good
effort here, with lots of supporting material, and it seems to me to be an
acceptable place to start, just as he presented it. It will no doubt be
picked to shreds, but what will be gained in the exercise will hopefully
lead us closer to seeing how to develop a theory of astrology. I will
assert that, thanks to Dennis, we can now begin that process.
Good job, sir!"

Thanks, Bill, glad that this particular piece of mine seems to verge on what
you were looking for. You have managed to surprise me again, because I had
no idea that that might be the case, and indeed I see resonance and
entrainment as rather peripheral to the astrological mechanism. My personal
perception of the mechanism is as I outlined in my debut here, and several
follow-up pieces: the number archetypes, particularly 1 & 2 which structure
both the holarchy of nature and synchronicity, thus explaining `as above, so
below'. I am aware that this explanation is insufficient for you. Indeed,
rather embarrassed that my piece on resonance/entrainment was too boring, I
felt obliged to jazz it up with examples of organisms performing
accordingly. That superficial mechanistic stuff is very Dragon's tail for
me (rising, habitual, easy, tedious) - with an Aries Moon exactly conjunct
the Dragon's head I need to be on the frontier. That's why I wrote the
following in my debut piece back in April...

"Since the signs were perceived to be generated by the Sun, Moon & planets
and much human experience results from cause & effect relations, we can
understand why the original and most popular explanation was causal. Even
today there is residual merit in this view: various cascading mechanisms of
influence from the Sun and Moon and (marginally) planets have been
discovered. See "Cycles of Heaven" (GL Playfair & S Hill, 1978), the
astronomer Dr Percy Seymour's "Astrology: The Evidence of Science" (1988)
and "The Scientific Basis of Astrology", not to mention "Supernature",
"Lifetide" and various other of biologist Lyall Watson's wonderful books.
However physical processes are characterised by built-in time lags, so this
mechanistic approach is really a red herring.
The key must be found in the moment of synchronicity. "

The horoscope depicts the synchronicity. It is not the diagram of a
time-lag, it is the diagram of an event (or moment at a particular place.
That is why synchronicity is the key signpost to the astrological mechanism.
That is the significance of the Gauqelin findings, and why I recycled and
emphasised Prof. Peter Roberts' point that the correlations were proven for
apparent planetary positions, not real ones. All those resonances and
entrainments are effects of the mechanism. They are no more than
consequences. They are secondary or tertiary or whatever, whereas we need
to retain focus on what is primary in order to identify the mechanism. What
is primary is the holomovement, and those operators within it that emerge
from the implicate order (realm of potential) and give shape to natural
forms and time to natural processes. These operators I call the archetypes
of nature. In this category fall the circle, spiral, helix, and at least
the first four numbers if not the first twelve, and any others similar that
anyone can identify as formative and manifesting frequently in nature. The
social utility of this approach lies in its evident multi-disciplinary
acceptability. I believe Rudhyar intuited all this, without quite spelling
it out this explicitly.

However, tho I am pretty staunch about my personal astrophilosophy, I defer
to the current group in this list context. This means I realise the extent
to which you or anyone agrees with me is not the point; the point is the
extent of any spontaneous convergence of views that may emerge from the
discussion. The group mind is an entity with an evolutionary trajectory of
its own, and the most I can really expect is to help catalyse the evolution.

Which reminds me. I was thinking when I started writing that, as our
moderator Francis once suggested here, morphogenetic fields seem likely
contenders for part of the mechanism. At least, I advocated something
similar in my book 7 years ago, but seem to have been unable to advance this
connection further since. However, it does appear to me that morphogenetic
fields are related to group minds, if not identical with them, and, as
Sheldrake pointed out in "The Presence of the Past", they are a good
explanation as functional links between the implicate and explicate. I
think Bohm said as much before he died, perhaps I can hunt down the quote
some time. The 2-way info transmission facility is what matched his scheme.
So if informational patterns reside in the ocean of potential (implicate
order), and if they are modified by real-world occurrences, and also feed
back into real life, all we need do is postulate that any organism and any
collective has its archetypal nature embedded in the implicate order, and
interacts with it. The interaction is essentially informational, but energy
and matter are both channelled into processes and redirected in consequence
of the feedback interaction. This is the occult side of nature. The
m-fields are the mechanism of the feedback process. I conducted a web
search for `holomovement' and was pleasantly surprised that the
multidisciplinary appeal of this hypothesis is still spreading.

Bill wrote: "The figure for the mean lunar day is, as Dennis said, about 24
hours and 50 minutes; he asserted that the human circadian cycle is
approximately of the same length. What is your source, Dennis?" Sorry,
can't recall because it was years ago, and I didn't intuit its relevance to
my endeavours, just noted it mentally as a curiosity. I suspect it was in
"Supernature", or another of biologist Lyall Watson's books that report a
massive amount of semi-magical phenomena in nature. However I recall when
noting it feeling fairly sure that I had read the same info somewhere else
years earlier, because it did not come as a surprise. You could try a web
search for "circadian", or check Dewey's "Cycles". Encyclopaedia
Brittannica would be sure to have it, you can search it online for a fee, or
get the CD ROM, or travel to the local library for the hard copy. The
reason I noted the fact mentally was the discrepancy between our circadian
rhythm and the diurnal cycle - it was only recently when I read the quoted
Seymour reference that the penny dropped.

Bill wrote: "The idea I had was that a system whose resonant frequency is
within the bandwidth of two larger systems whose frequencies are not within
each other's bandwidth will receive energy from both and thus be a local
negative-entropy phenomenon. Is this relevant?" I guess the idea is valid
presuming a physical transmission mechanism is present to convey the energy
from the two larger to the third system. "In either case, what is the
bandwidth of the human circadian cycle? Does anyone know? Could it also be
variable from individual to individual. Could it (or it's range if it is
variable) in fact include both the lunar and solar day? From the
observation that we take several days to really recover from jet lag, it
would seem the bandwidth would be fairly wide. Does this make sense? Do
any of these questions make sense?" They are certainly worthy questions,
and I recommend a web search to bookmark likely sites and investigate later.
I tend to download lengthy articles then read them offline. I expect you
will find that the bandwidth does include both lunar and solar days.

Bill wrote: "Now, we are told that between order and chaos lies complexity,
and as some would have it, the rules there are best viewed as simplexity and
complicity." No idea what this means, but it sure sounds good! And "the
modern practice has been to pick up what "feels right" and leave as detritus
what doesn't "seem right". Bah!!!! How does anyone know what does or
doesn't work until they try it out??" Happy to own up here to a rare
instance of me falling into the `typical astrologer' category. Whilst I
have some sympathy with Bill's critique of this common habit, perhaps I will
use as my counsel for the defence the Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard
Feynman. I will cite his oft-recycled assertion that, to do (well in)
physics, "ya gotta have taste".

I suspect I need to assay some interpretation of this. I think it is an
elegant version of the old handyman's dictum that, if you want to get the
job done right, you use the right tools. Very Virgo. There's more to it
than that though. Aesthetic judgement drives decision-making as a general
rule, it seems. Often people cannot rationalise why they feel they need to
do something, and when they articulate it, it sounds like they are acting
from an inner urging. People will only try something if they get that inner
inclination to do so; it must seem both appropriate and promising. I speak
as someone who spent a large part of my teenage years trying to do things
that were deemed right and necessary by society, ignoring the inner voice
that kept saying "Wrong! Wrong!"

So I think Feynman was saying that the smart physicist will actually use
his/her aesthetic judgement in decision-making, completely contrary to the
scientific myth of logical reasoning. However, I have a better reason for
circling with the flock on this matter. The right brain produces holistic
insights by assessing each new element of information in relation to the
context of the whole, the entirety of your knowledge. If it doesn't fit,
you know immediately. Well, I sure do, and I gather this is normal. So
there is some kind of internal evaluation that throws a binary switch:
right/wrong. The mind does this automatically.

So, in regard to the Ptolemaic bones mouldering in the corpse of classical
astrology, that's why I was able to spot those few that fitted my
understanding of the world at the time. My judgement must have been pretty
good because a considerable expansion of my multi-disciplinary perspective
in the last couple of decades has required no amendment to it. The efforts
of Project Hindsight will be best judged in relation to the
multi-disciplinary frame of reference provided by the emerging scientific
paradigm. If they flog their deceased nag hard enough, will it rise, to
canter? Perhaps if they all hold hands and do a positive visualisation...

A couple of Exegesis contributors couldn't get their heads around Bill's
notion of a non-mechanistic mechanism. My instinctive reaction to it was
that I had already long ago come to the same expectation, so I naturally
agree with Bill that that is indeed what we ought to expect is happening.
This is the arena of metaphysics, where Bohm, Smuts, Sheldrake and Koestler
have already made major relevant contributions. The number archetypes 1 & 2
are an essential addition, as they form the bridge between Bohm's
prescription and the prescription of Smuts/Koestler.

"As far as modern Genethliacal practice is concerned, I think it's pretty
clear that most people would rather bend their own minds than have someone
do it for them on the basis of presumed authority. This is *good*!! It
speaks of a slow development of individual responsibility which can only
help the state of the human condition, in my not so humble opinion. < grin >
The horoscope is the map and the individual is the territory. The map had
better match the territory or it's not the right map (invalid horoscope...
bad data, probably). And then, if you are a service provider (astrology is
a service), then you work with and not against the client. It's just that
simple and has long been so in the very basics of good business practice."

Altogether very well put, Bill. I agree, but perhaps with the quibble that
some clients of other astrologers do seem to come for instruction. The
competent counsellor (my partner Janice, for instance, also an astrologer)
or psychotherapist would not fall for the guru trip such clients tend to set
them up for, but you can hardly blame astrologers for allowing clients to
make gurus out of them. Ego-building is a normal psychological function in
human nature, huh?

"Exact birthtimes are only useful when vetted by rectification. Period.
End of story. Otherwise, one assumes at the risk of making an ass of
oneself, I think. One of the more interesting tools for rectification turns
out to be Jones' Sabian Symbols, and they are far more useful in Jones'
overly turgid schema than they are in Rudhyar's spiritual rendition, at
least in this regard. I've never attempted to do precise work with them,
but they can be a means of adjustment when the client and astrologer
have enough rapport to use them. Otherwise, the classic ways that
used to burn up reams of paper are the tried and true techniques."

Turgid is indeed the word for the works of MEJ! I still own a couple of his
books, including the Sabian one, but God knows why. Every time I tried to
read "Astrology: Why and How it Works" I couldn't get through more than a
page. Talk about cerebral constipation! Wonder what in his chart imposed
such a crippling impediment to his comprehension and use of the English
language? Often over the years I have often discussed the use of Sabian
symbols in rectification with other astrologers, having originally intuited
that it ought to work. The verdict remains mixed, but remarkable
correlations have been observed. Though I had some myself, I ended up
discarding the system as too unreliable.

Bill's initial point advocating rectification recycles an old controversy,
on which I tend to have 50 cents each way. Here, as an illustration, is
Axel Harvey writing to a.a.m on 9 June: "Received a very worried email from
a client who has been called on the carpet by his boss. The message is
timestamped 1:37.6 a.m. EDT today. Saturn crossed his MC at 11:39.5 EDT
yesterday. I rectified his birthtime eight years ago." The exact times seem
irrelevant, but Axel's point is that the precise correlation confirms the
accuracy of his original rectification. I'm inclined to agree, presuming he
is telling the truth. This is hearsay evidence, however, even if he is.
The social value of rectification was dramatically demonstrated by the
couple of dozen or so published rectifications of Ronald Reagan's birth,
all different; zilch!! The moral of this story is that rectification, as
an astrological technique, is a mirage. It is a delusional focus for the
astrocommunity. The total lack of commonality means there is no
standard technique which any novice may properly learn and apply to
get the right answer.

The other side of the rectification coin is that some astrologers appear to
be able to get reliable answers for themselves, using inexplicable
unexportable idiosyncratic methods. I presume Bill is one. The rest of us
must take their assertions on faith, and we tend to believe them if they
seem credible. This is likewise Neptunian, but if it happens even to a
sceptic like me then it must be fairly prevalent. However it is worth
noting that the advocates of rectification are alike in only one respect:
they all shun the test of science. That is to say, when offered the
opportunity to demonstrate that their expertise contains some objective
validity, they shirk the challenge. All an advocate of rectification need
do to prove their competence is to apply their method to cases where the
birthtimes are reliably known, and get the right answers.

"As far as an objective astrologer is concerned, I've never met one and I
don't think the animal exists; not that it is extinct, just that it was
always a myth used for the same purposes for which myths are commonly used.
In fact, I've never met a really objective person! If there actually were
such a thing, science wouldn't have nearly the problem it has in getting at
what is really going on in *it's* own right!" Yes, objectivity is relative,
but for historical reasons there is a widespread belief that it is absolute.
Understanding is essentially subjective, but meaning and knowledge can be
subjective or objective depending on context; this hinges on whether any
sharing or commonality is implied. The more so, the more relatively
objective. Rectification illustrates this, being a case of zero
commonality; total subjectivity. The zodiac is a relatively objective
frame of reference; the horizon, being local, is less so, but it is a
generic frame of reference so is objective in its abstract form. The reader
hopefully does not need me to point out that this entire matter is one of
relativity.

Bill: "I'm trying to free it from the assumption that there is in fact no
physical basis for astrology, that it is only a psychological or spiritual
language, and that any connection to the celestial sphere is incidental. If
it can be demonstrated compellingly that there is no basis, then I will
suggest we simply change its name and have done with it, for it will no
longer constitute the study of the stars. Until that point, let's stick
with the celestial sphere as the foundation, I suggest; we can certainly
turn things upside down and inside out without losing that orientation."
Not the first time here that Bill has expressed this concern, but I don't
share it. Any advocate of plastic time would have to repudiate astrology's
massive tradition, in which the horoscope has always been the map of an
event, or moment somewhere specific on the earth's surface. Anyone with so
narrow a focus that they could only see astrology as "a psychological or
spiritual language" will never be able to communicate with the rest of the
astrocommunity, thus can be written off as members of a minority school of
thought. As far as the stars are concerned, the celestial sphere provides
our common frames of reference and the context for accessing relatively
universal meanings. As our common visual experience of the cosmos, this
fundamental component of astrology will probably only ever be successfully
negated by those in psychological denial of real world experience. Such
people invariably marginalise themselves.

"Once again I'm going to suggest that there are two different and probably
(eventually) complimentary threads going on in this group. There is the
thread that seeks a theoretical base for astrology, and there is a thread
that seeks to understand the subjective experience of astrology. For one of
these threads to seek to validate itself by bashing the other is an exercise
in futility, I think. Neither of these views invalidates the other, nor
should they expect to, I submit." This seems a good point, even if I hadn't
seen the dialogue here as constituting two such threads. If Bill's analysis
is broadly correct, I guess I have been addressing the former with perhaps
an inadvertent sporadic lapse into the latter.

Bill: "Neuroscience has rather neatly demonstrated the basis for clinical
observations in psychology that were strongly refuted in the lay
public:emotions *don't* rule the mind, the public said!! The are entirely
separate matters, they said. The psychologist suggested that our initial
response is emotional rather than intellectual, even for those people who
could demonstrate a powerful intellect and a powerful will besides."

Well, this appears to contradict my experience , which was of growing up in
a society in which the public had been led by the academics to believe that
reason and emotion were entirely separate. People reacted emotionally to
new information, but could use it intelligently only to the extent that they
learnt to use their minds to transcend their feelings. Perhaps the
contradiction is more apparent than real. Coincidentally, I have just begun
reading "Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain" (1994). At
the beginning of his intro, the author writes "I had been advised early in
life that sound decisions came from a cool head, that emotions and reason
did not mix any more than oil and water. I had grown up accustomed to
thinking that the mechanisms of reason existed in a separate province of the
mind, where emotion should not be allowed to intrude, and when I thought of
the brain behind that mind, I envisioned separate neural systems for reason
and emotion. This was a widely held view of the relation between reason and
emotion, in mental and neural terms."

Bill: "We now know the psychologists were right, but we also know that the
other side had its own validity as well. Emotions are among the first
inputs the cerebrum has in any matter, as they are the experience of the
body preparing itself according to flagged memories. The cerebrum develops
its own response and includes the emotions as part thereof, and one of the
cerebrum's duties is to preside supreme, ruling the emotional reality as
appropriate. So we do respond with our emotions, and we are well served by
being able to control them as appropriate. Traditionally, and now with some
solid biological evidence, maturity was defined as the ability to control
one's emotional being when appropriate or necessary."

So the traditional view was partly right, and only wrong to the extent that
it implied (or it was interpreted as requiring) the suppression of emotions.
You are probably familiar with the above book, Bill, but if not, the author
is Antonio Damasio, MD PhD, Professor of Neurology at Univ. of Iowa College
of Medicine and adjunct professor at the Salk Institute of Biological
Studies, La Jolla, Ca. Publisher's credit from David Hubel, Nobel Laureate,
Harvard University: "Here at last is an attempt by one of the world's
foremost neurologists, to synthesize what is known about the workings of the
brain... It deserves to become a classic." Another from Robert Ornstein,
author of "The Evolution of Consciousness", "The Psychology of
Consciousness", "The Roots of the Self" (plus 17 other books): "A rare
chance to get the first-hand thoughts of one of modern neuroscience's major
thinkers. Antonio Damasio offers a revolutionary portrait of how reason and
feelings come together in the mind." Steven Rose, likewise author of
related works, wrote in the NY Times: "Antonio Damasio is among the world's
leading neurologists, and his book Descartes' Error should be crucial
reading not only for neuroscientists and philosophers but for lay readers
too". Hope it turns out to be worthy of the hype.

Further into his intro Damasio writes: "I suggest only that certain aspects
of the process of emotion and feeling are indispensable for rationality. At
their best, feelings point us in the proper direction, take us to the
appropriate place in a decision-making space, where we may put the
instruments of logic to good use. We are faced by uncertainty when we have
to make a moral judgement, decide on the course of a personal relationship,
choose some means to prevent our being penniless in old age, or plan for the
life that lies ahead. Emotion and feeling, along with the covert
physiological machinery underlying them, assist us with the daunting task of
predicting an uncertain future and planning our actions accordingly." Well,
as well as supporting Bill's point, this looks suspiciously like Damasio
concurring with my point 17 paragraphs above, where I responded to Bill's
critique of the `use it if it feels right' syndrome.

Damasio continues: "Further, I propose that human reason depends on several
brain systems, working in concert across many levels of neuronal
organization, rather than on a single brain center. Both `high-level' and
`low-level' brain regions, from the prefrontal cortices to the hypothalamus
and brain stem, cooperate in the making of reason. The lower levels in the
neural edifice of reason are the same ones that regulate the processing of
emotions and feelings, along with the body functions necessary for an
organism's survival. In turn, these lower levels maintain direct and mutual
relationships with virtually every bodily organ, thus placing the body
directly within the chain of operations that generate the highest reaches of
reasoning, decision making, and, by extension, social behaviour and
creativity. Emotion, feeling, and biological regulation all play a role in
human reason."

Relating this thesis to the contemporary astrological paradigm, reasoning is
performed by the ideas and communication drive, Mercury. Emotions and
feelings are produced by our organic response mechanism, Luna. People often
feel things in their body, evidence that the Moon mediates the mind/body
interface. An impressive consensus has formed amongst modern astrologers
that the planets in human birthcharts represent motivating drives in the
psyche, mostly without adherents being aware that Rudhyar originated this
view only about 70 years ago. Rudhyar wrote frequently (in presenting his
thesis that the horoscope is a model of the psyche) that each component of
the psyche must be seen to operate in a holistic manner, by virtue of the
coordination of such parts by the whole. Our reductionist upbringing
inclines us to define the planets as separate psychological drives, but this
is likely to be only relatively true, and, taken to the exclusion of the
holistic perspective, sufficiently misleading to produce error in
interpretation.

In my own book I quoted various points made by neuroscientist Richard
Bergland, from his inspirational 1985 work "The Fabric of Mind". It would
seem that hormones not only originate or mediate feelings, but act as a
fundamental source of intelligence, presumably informing the brain. I agree
that insights from brain science are likely to help our endeavours here,
Bill. Hope there's more to come!